Theaetetus:Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

I think the answer may lie in the fact that the sponsor also owns the state's largest chain of BBQ joints actually.

Still, this sort of knee-jerk reaction makes me think Bloomberg should next pass a law making the constant breathing of air mandatory for all citizens. The collective IQ of the country would go up by 15 points overnight.

Magorn:I think the answer may lie in the fact that the sponsor also owns the state's largest chain of BBQ joints actually.

But even then, it's inconsistent... "Citizens have the right to eat as much as they want! But we shouldn't be forced to let them know how much they're eating."You'd think he would proudly put calorie counts on his menu, with prizes for consuming the 10,000 calorie snack pack and such.

I loathe the fact my taxes are used to buy hoverounds and pay out disability payments for the willingly obese. They should have to enroll in a diet/fitness programs or lose benefits. Mississippi takes in more federal Medicaid dollars per those spent than any other state as well.

/ it's kind of like those anti-drug pep-rally things from high school; they didn't make me not want to do drugs; they made me consider doing drugs so I wouldn't have to listen to the stupid presentation.

The only trouble I have with this, is if we're taking away the calorie counts and soda size bans, they need to make it illegal for people to sue the restaurants saying that their food made them fat. I could EASILY see someone even suing the state for this bill, and state that since they had no idea what the calorie content was on a triple-pastrami burger with covered and smothered fries on the side, they can sue the state for keeping them ignorant and for the emotional distress caused by their obesity. And thanks to this law, they might even win.

Magorn:Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

I think the answer may lie in the fact that the sponsor also owns the state's largest chain of BBQ joints actually.

Still, this sort of knee-jerk reaction makes me think Bloomberg should next pass a law making the constant breathing of air mandatory for all citizens. The collective IQ of the country would go up by 15 points overnight.

He's a mayor, not a legislator. Prohibition has never been successful. Freedom of choice is the bedrock this nation was founded upon.

PreMortem:I loathe the fact my taxes are used to buy hoverounds and pay out disability payments for the willingly obese. They should have to enroll in a diet/fitness programs or lose benefits. Mississippi takes in more federal Medicaid dollars per those spent than any other state as well.

theknuckler_33:Passing laws that they think will really 'stick it to them libs'... the primary goal of conservatives.

Yep that's what this is really all about. I actually don't agree with trying to limit portion sizes if some one wants to drink three gallons of come be my guest. I also think if someone wants to get high as a kite that we shouldn't stop them either. Somehow I think the sponsor of the bill might not agree with me on that.As for the calorie count issue. Why not put it out there let the free market decide? Oh you want to piss off libs that would like to make informed decisions about what they eat.

Bloomberg is right, too. There is no reason to sell large sodas. I don't care if it is your farking right. Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?! No, Mr. Brimley, it is not. So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

Ring of Fire:theknuckler_33: Passing laws that they think will really 'stick it to them libs'... the primary goal of conservatives.

Yep that's what this is really all about. I actually don't agree with trying to limit portion sizes if some one wants to drink three gallons of come be my guest. I also think if someone wants to get high as a kite that we shouldn't stop them either. Somehow I think the sponsor of the bill might not agree with me on that.As for the calorie count issue. Why not put it out there let the free market decide? Oh you want to piss off libs that would like to make informed decisions about what they eat.

pacified:ahh, the american south! Never has a larger group of fat, stupid morons ever been collected. Lincoln was wrong. Should have let the racist inbred pig-farkers start keep their fatty fat country.

the whole of the south still lives in a slavery mentality, like the house slave: praising their oppressors.

Glancing Blow:PreMortem: I loathe the fact my taxes are used to buy hoverounds and pay out disability payments for the willingly obese. They should have to enroll in a diet/fitness programs or lose benefits. Mississippi takes in more federal Medicaid dollars per those spent than any other state as well.

Could you explain the relationship between obesity and Medicaid?

Have you never seen the old episode of The Simpsons where Homer's goal is to gain weight to get over 300 lbs so he can collect disability? If you can't work because you're too fat to get in the door/have heart problems/have knee problems/have a "thyroid problem"/whatever, then you're collecting disability and get medicaid/medical as your insurance since you're under the income line. You're welcome.

Glancing Blow:PreMortem: I loathe the fact my taxes are used to buy hoverounds and pay out disability payments for the willingly obese. They should have to enroll in a diet/fitness programs or lose benefits. Mississippi takes in more federal Medicaid dollars per those spent than any other state as well.

pacified:Bloomberg is right, too. There is no reason to sell large sodas. I don't care if it is your farking right. Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?! No, Mr. Brimley, it is not. So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

So would you advocate that the government not use taxpayer money to fund the medical industry?

pacified:Bloomberg is right, too. There is no reason to sell large sodas. I don't care if it is your farking right. Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?! No, Mr. Brimley, it is not. So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

And what if I want 64 ounces of diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.

THISAlso wik- Distance has a lot to do with it, too. Here in the South, everyone drives. Everyone. There's no adequate system of affordable mass transit or even sidewalks in most cities. People have to drive to get where they're going. That, in and of itself, is a giant contributor to obsity in our neck of the woods.

Theaetetus:pacified: Bloomberg is right, too. There is no reason to sell large sodas. I don't care if it is your farking right. Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?! No, Mr. Brimley, it is not. So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

And what if I want 64 ounces of diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.

"manly thirst requirements"? Hahaha. I guess that's the reason for the Big Gulps- like for long distance truckers... But what I don't understand is why in the last ten years, a small went from 12 oz to 16, a med went from 16 to 20, and a large went from 20 to like 40. So big that they had to alter the bottom four inches of the cup to fit into a cupholder, because the rest is so wide, it won't fit. It's utterly ridiculous. When I worked in food service in 2003, those were the sizes. Sometime in the last few years they've gone up. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THAT.

Ring of Fire:theknuckler_33: Passing laws that they think will really 'stick it to them libs'... the primary goal of conservatives.

Yep that's what this is really all about. I actually don't agree with trying to limit portion sizes if some one wants to drink three gallons of come be my guest. I also think if someone wants to get high as a kite that we shouldn't stop them either. Somehow I think the sponsor of the bill might not agree with me on that.As for the calorie count issue. Why not put it out there let the free market decide? Oh you want to piss off libs that would like to make informed decisions about what they eat.

Information is one of the requirements of the free market.

"Like casinos, large corporate entities have studied the numbers and the ways in which people respond to them. These are not con tricks - they're not even necessarily against our direct interests, although sometimes they can be - but they are hacks for the human mind, ways of manipulating us into particular decisions we otherwise might not make. They are also, in a way, deliberate underminings of the core principle of the free market, which derives its legitimacy from the idea that informed self-interest on aggregate sets appropriate prices for items. The key word is 'informed'; the point of behavioural economics - or rather, of its somewhat buccaneering corporate applications - is to skew our perception of the purchase to the advantage of the company. The overall consequence of that is to tilt the construction of our society away from what it should be if we were making the rational decisions classical economics imagines we would, and towards something else."― Nick Harkaway